Encyclopædia Iranica

Advanced Search

MIDDLE PERSIAN LITERATURE i. PAHLAVI LITERATURE

the writings of the Zoroastrians in the Middle Persian language and Book Pahlavi script, which were compiled in the 9th and the 10th centuries CE.

MIDDLE PERSIAN LITERATURE

i. PAHLAVI LITERATURE

Pahlavi literature traditionally defines the writings of the Zoroastrians in the Middle Persian language and Book Pahlavi script which were compiled in the 9th and the 10th centuries CE. These books safeguard, in the vast majority of cases, older material, going back to the Sasanian period and, in same cases, even earlier. The surviving Pahlavi literature preserves part of the literary heritage of the late Sasanian period, with a great prevalence of religious books. Quite clearly, this is due to the fact that the compilers and copyists of these books all belonged to the clergy. Quite important in the development of Pahlavi literature, and extremely relevant in the compilation of two works which stand out for the wealth of information they transmit and for the antiquity of the contents, the Dēnkardand the Bundahišn, is the Middle Persian Zand (commentary) to the Avesta. In fact, a passage found at the end of the 3rd book of the Dēnkard (chap. 420; cf. de Menasce,, 1973, pp. 379-80), explicitly states this continuity, describing the Dēnkard as an ideal synthesis and continuation of the Sasanian Avesta of the 21 nasks (see AVESTA), which are described in some detail in the 8th book of the Dēnkard.

Several different literary genres are represented in Pahlavi literature, the vast majority of which relates to religious themes, with the exception of some glossaries, the very important legal book Mādayān ī Hazār Dādestān, and the texts contained in the miscellaneous codex MK, which preserve a sample of what must have been a very rich and qualitative secular literature known to have blossomed under the Parthians and the Sasanians; it reached full maturity in the late Sasanian period, at the court of Husraw I and his successors, but was only very sparsely preserved by later Islamic authors (cf. Gutas, 1998, pp. 25-27). Not all Pahlavi books can be strictly assigned to a specific literary genre. Since some are due to a work of compilation, their contents can differ markedly. The clearest example is provided by the Dēnkard, still only partly published (see below); its contents were described in some details by J. de Menasce (1958).

Pahlavi literature has been the subject of a number of studies, more or less detailed. The earliest analytical work is due to the pen of E. W. West, the person best versed in Pahlavi literature in those days, and appeared in the second volume of the Grundriss der iranischen Philologie (West, 1896-1904). Very useful information on a number of texts can also be found in West’s five volumes on Pahlavi Books, which appeared in the series Sacred Books of the East (1880-1897). Though now outdated, these volumes still constitute the largest selection of Pahlavi texts ever published. Other wide-ranging studies, covering Pahlavi literature as a whole, include works by J. C. Tavadia (1956), M. Boyce (1968a), A. Pagliaro (1968a), and the two long chapters on Pahlavi literature contained in the 3rd and 4th volumes of the Cambridge History of Iran, both written by de Menasce (1975 and 1983 respectively). More recent are an important work by A. Tafazzoli (1997), covering the entire pre-Islamic literature of the Iranians, and the exhaustive volume on Pahlavi literature written by C. G. Cereti (2001). A further survey is by M. Macuch (2009). Other contributions, such as those by J. Duchesne-Guillemin (1962, pp. 52 ff.) and O. Klíma (1959, pp. 33 ff.), are also valuable, though less exhaustive.

The more extensive Pahlavi work is the Dēnkard. Unfortunately, only seven of the original nine books have survived the perils of time, and only one manuscript, codex B (Dresden, 1966), contains the text almost in its entirety. Moreover, this manuscript does not count among the best examples of Middle Persian calligraphy, presenting many errors and ambiguous spellings. The manuscript tradition of the Dēnkard consists of: (1) Codex B, which was copied in Torkābād, Yazd, in 1659 (Dresden, 1996, pp. 12-13) and is the only complete manuscript of what is left of the Zoroastrian summa; (2) mss. K43 (a and b), in which the folios that contain part of the Dēnkard were completed in 1594 in Torkābād; and (3) codex DH, better known for its version of the Iranian Bundahišn and the Zand ī Wahman Yasn (1597 CE). Two codices preserved in the University Library, Cambridge (Add. 328 and 529), also contain the final part of the Dēnkard.

As yet, no complete edition of the Dēnkard has been published, apart from the monumental work initiated by Dastur P. B. Sanjana and completed by his son, D. P. Sanjana (Sanjana and Sanjana, 1874-1928). Early translations were done by West of Books III, IV, V (all only partially), VII, VIII, and IX (West, 1892, pp. 1-397 and 406-18; 1897, pp. 1-130). However, several individual books of the Dēnkard have been published according to modern philological criteria. Today one may refer to de Menasce’s translation of Book III (1973), Sh. Shaked’s edition of Book VI (1979), M. Molé’s edition of Book VII and parts of Book V (1967, pp. 2-115), and the recent edition of Book V by J. Amouzgar and Tafazzoli (2000). In 1991 Amouzgar and Tafazzoli translated in Persian a selection of passages taken from books V, VII and IX. Ms. B was published in facsimile by M. J. Dresden in 1966; K43a and K43b were published in 1936 in the series of the Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis (see CODICES HAFNIENSES), while DH was published by the Iranian Culture Foundation (P. K. Anklesaria, 1970a). A printed edition of the Pahlavi text of the Dēnkard was completed in 1911 by D. M. Madan, and a lithograph of the 7th Book of the Dēnkard was published by M. R. Unvala (1904).

The first three books of the Dēnkard (books III, IV, and V) all share a common apologetic nature, expounding the precepts of the Good Religion and polemicizing with other religions of the time, mainly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, though a few chapters are directed also against the dualistic religion founded by Mani. The material found in these books seems to be a re-writing of the precepts found in the Pahlavi commentary to the Avesta, inspired by it, but not directly deriving from it. The 3rd book of the Dēnkard was written, at least in its final version, by Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān, while the other two are more archaic, and go back to Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzadān, as overtly stated both in the 4th (B 514.5-7) and in the 5th book (B 494.1-4).

The 6th book contains the largest preserved collection of gnomic literature in Middle Persian, partially drawing on other attested collections, as is shown by S. Shaked in his edition (1979). This literary genre must have been widely current in the Sasanian world; and ethical, political, and moral sayings may well have constituted the essential part of one of the Hāda-mānsarīg (ritual) nasks of the Sasanian Avesta: the Bariš Nask. The 7th, 8th, and 9th books of the Dēnkard, though differing deeply one from the other, share the common character of being exegetical books, aimed at preserving the memory of the Sasanian Avesta, making its contents—or rather those found in its Zand—available to a public which had by then lost any profound knowledge of the Avestan language. The 7th book is entirely devoted to the legend of Zoroaster, in the form that it had taken in Sasanian times. Though deeply, rooted in the Avesta and Zand, it should not be considered as a mere translation, but rather as a Middle Persian composition, rich in passages taken from the Avesta and its Zand. The 8th book is a summary of the Sasanian Avesta as it was preserved in the 9th century. It contains a description of nineteen of the twenty-one nasks; of the other two, the Waštag was by then completely lost, and only the Avestan text of the Nāxtar was still preserved, for teaching, studying, and worship (pad čāšišn ud ōšmurišn ud ēzišn [Dk. VIII.6.1; West, 1892, p. 15]). However, not all parts of the Zand Avesta were described in equal detail. The greater part of Book eight was devoted to four legal nasks: the Nigādōm, the Duzd-sar-nizad, the Huspārām, and the Sagādōm; all sections (brīnag) of these are listed. Finally, book nine contains a detailed description of three gathic nasks, each of them containing different commentary to the Gāthās: the Sūdgar, the Warštmansar, and the Bay.

An important book, similar in style and genre to the first three surviving books of the Dēnkard, is the Škand Gumānīg Wizār. It was written by Mardānfarrox ī Ohrmazd-dādān in the 9th century CE, and it mentions the name of Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān, the first compiler of the Dēnkard , but not that of Ādurbād ī Ēmēdān, the scholar-priest who was responsible for the final version of this work. Mardānfarrox aimed at expounding the main doctrines of the Zoroastrian creed, criticizing at the same time the contradictions of the three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as the beliefs of the Manicheans. In this connection it should be remembered that, due to the fact that all three Abrahamic religions are monotheistic, and thus share a set of theological beliefs, criticizing certain aspects of Judaism and Christianity amounts to indirectly criticizing Islamic beliefs. Thus the chapters on Christianity (chap. XV) and Judaism (chaps. XIII and XIV) may have been meant to target Islam as well, a religion which is directly addressed only in chapters XI and XII. It should be also kept in mind that the author, whenever possible, might have avoided directly attacking Islam, since criticizing the dominant religion might have endangered his own safety.

The book can be divided into two main parts, excluding the initial eulogy. Chapters II-X, affirm, describe, and uphold the main tenets of the Zoroastrian religion, while chapters XI-XVI are polemical attacks against the four abovementioned religions. Identifiable sources of Mardānfarrox are Ādurbād ī *Yāwandān, a book called Rōšn Nibēg, written by Rōšn son of Ādurfarrbay, who was identified by West with a commentator known from the (Mādayān ī) Hazār Dādestān. The apologetic chapters show a detailed knowledge of the other religions, but no specific source can be identified. The most ancient manuscripts of the Škand Gumānīg Wizār transmit its Pāzand and Sanskrit text, while the codices which contain a Pahlavi version of its first part are all secondary. The manuscript tradition is complex and not completely studied (cf. Jāmāsp-Asānā and West, 1887, pp. xix-xxvii, and de Menasce, 1945, pp. 14-15). The standard edition in still the one by de Menasce (1945), though D. Taillieu (2004) has studied the last chapter of this text in his Ph.D. dissertation on the Zoroastrian polemic against Manicheism.

Two texts expound the cosmological theories of the Zoroastrians. One, whose contents seem to be more ancient, is the Bundahišn, the other, marked by the personality of its author, is known as the Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram. The Bundahišn is a cosmological work, written directly in Middle Persian, but based on a detailed knowledge of the Avestan corpus. Main sources of the Bundahišn are the Dāmdād and Čihrdād nasks of the Sasanian Avesta. Two versions of this work have come down to us: the Iranian or Greater Bundahišn and the Indian Bundahišn. The first to be known to Western Iranists was the Indian Bundahišn, transmitted mainly through codices K20 of Copenhagen and M51 of München. An approximate calculation of the original length of the text, as contained in K20, gives a result of about 13,000 words. The IranianBundahišn, contained in mss. TD1 and DH, counts, according to West, 30,000 words. It became known to the Western public at the end of the 19th century, once T. D. Anklesaria had obtained the codex TD1 from Yazd; it was followed, about ten years later, by TD2. Ms. DH was discovered in the private library of Dastur H. Jamasp. Both the name Bundahišn and the name Zand-āgāhīh are conventional, deriving from the first paragraph of the text, following the doxology, which also describes the subject matter of the Bundahišn (TD1 1v.7-11), which can be shortly summarized as follows: (1) the primordial creation; (2) the nature of the world and its creatures, from the beginning to the end of time; (3) the mythical history of the world. Though we know little about the history of the Bundahišn itself, most scholars agree on considering the first thirty chapters of the Iranian version as a product of the culture of late Sasanian times, and the final six as a later addition. The final compilation of the Bundahišn is probably due to Farrbay, son of Ašawahišt, surnamed Jādagīh, who in chapter 35a.8 speaks of himself in the first person. He was a contemporary, perhaps slightly younger, of Zādspram, son Juwānjam, author of the Wīzidagīhā ī Zādspram, who was active towards the end of the 9th century.

The text has been handed down to us in six independent manuscripts: the three manuscripts containing the text of the IranianBundahišn all date to the 16th century. More specifically, TD1 was dated by West to about 900 Y./1531 while DH is slightly more recent (1597), but written by a more accurate copyist, though it presents two large lacunas. The very last part of the IranianBundahišn is also preserved in Codex K43, where it is followed by a colophon dated 1587. Finally, the Iranian version is also preserved in codex TD2, often cited, but secondary. The three codices which transmit the Indian version are much more ancient. K20 contains three different colophons dated 690 Y./1321, 720 Y./1351, and 700 Y./1331. K20b contains 19 folios, of which one, clearly more ancient, was assigned by West to the pen of Mihrābān, son of Kayhusraw, who wrote K2 and K5 in 1323-24. The remaining ones are relatively more recent, probably copied from the manuscript to which the older folio belongs. Though largely incomplete, this codex is very important, being independent from both K20 and M51. M51 was written in 766 Y./1397, by Pišotan Rām, and derives ultimately from a copy written by Mihrpānāg Srōšayār, Hērbad of Nēšābur. The order of chapters found in M51 differs radically from that of K20. Codices K43, K20, and K20b were all published in the Copenhagen series; TD and DH were published in facsimile by the Iranian Culture Foundation (P. K. Anklesaria, 1970a, 1970b), while M51 remains unpublished. TD2 was published in 1908 in facsimile by B. T. Anklesaria from the Nachlass of his father, T. D. Anklesaria.

The earliest translation of the Indian Bundahišn was made by A. H. Anquetil Duperron and published in 1771. Fifty years later Rasmus Rask (1787-1832) acquired the mss. K20 and K20b for the Royal Library of Copenhagen, and N. L. Westergaard published them in facsimile in 1851. The partial translations by M. Haug (1854) and F. Spiegel (1860), as well as the complete translation by Windischmann (1863), are all based on this text. F. Justi (1868) prepared a critical edition, though his work is devalued by the fact that he was never able to see M51. In his 1880 translation, West chose to mainly follow the Indian version, limiting the use of TD1 to chapters XXVIII, XXIX, XXXI, XXXII and XXXIII in his numbering, though openly recognizing its value, which he had earlier guessed from Andreas’s publication (1882) of a fragment taken from K43a. In 1933 H. W. Bailey obtained his Ph.D. with a thesis on the Bundahišn, which was unfortunately never published. In 1956 B. T. Anklesaria’s edition and translation of the Iranian Bundahišn, already completed by 1935 and based on TD2, was finally printed. R. Behzādi (1989) published an edition of the Indian Bundahišn compared with mss. TD1, TD2, and DH; and M. Bahār (1990) printed his Persian translation of the Bundahišn. In 2005 F. Pakzad published a critical edition of the Iranian Bundahišn, taking into account mss. TD1, TD2, DH, and K43, as well as the Indian Bundahišn mss. K20, K20b, and M51.

TheSelections of Zādspram (Wizīdagīhā ī Zādspram) are a cosmological work written by Zādspram, son of Juwānjam and brother of Manuščihr, the head of the Zoroastrian community of Fārs and Kērmān in the second half of the 9th century. The Epistles of Manuščihr show us that Zādspram was a reform-minded priest, head of the community of Sirjān. Though similar in many aspects to the Bundahišn, the Selections are more unitary and coherent than that text. The structure of this work, as well described by Tavadia, can be ranged under three subjects: (1) the past is narrated in chapters I-III, which describe the creation of the world, the assault by Ahriman, and the consequent corruption; (2) the present is represented by the life a Zoroaster (chaps. IV-XXV); (3) the future is described in the two important final chapters, dedicated to eschatology. Four chapters cannot be assigned to any of these groups: XXVII on the characteristics of the clergy, XXVIII on the structure of the Avesta, and XXIX and XXX on Zoroastrian medical science, which, in the same way as parallel paragraphs in the Bundahišn, show the influence of Greek knowledge. The value of this book resides in his originality, since it seems to be independent both from the Bundahišn and from the 7th book of Dēnkard, the latter with reference to the chapters directly concerned with Zoroaster’s life. The Dāmdād Nask is twice mentioned as a source; and Zādspram was probably the author of a lost work on a subject discussed (as far as we know) in the Dāmdād nask: Nibēg ī tōhmag-ōšmārišnīh “Book of the enumeration of the races.” The most recent edition of the Selections of Zādspram (Gignoux and Tafazzoli, 1993) is based on three different manuscripts, all of which are incomplete, as can be seen from the sudden end of chap. XXXV. Mss. TD and K35b are independent, though both derive from a common archetype (cf. P. K. Anklesaria, 1958, pp. 38-48), while BK is an ancient copy of K35. According to a colophon found in BK, K35b was copied in Kermān in 941 Y./1562. TD was acquired by Anklesaria from Iran ca. 1867. On the ground of the genealogy contained in its undated colophon, West estimated the copyist of TD to be older by two generations than the copyist of K35. The common heritage of the three codices is also shown by the fact that they all contain the same texts: the Dādestān ī Dēnīg and the Epistles of Manuščihr, both written by Manuščihr, brother of Zādspram, the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, and the Selections of Zādspram. In 1880 West translated the first chapters of the Selections of Zādspram in the Sacred Books of the East, in 1934 codex K35 was printed in the series Codices Avestici et Pahlavici Bibliothecae Universitatis Hafniensis, and in 1943 B. T. Anklesaria published an edition based on mss. K35b, TD, and BK: unfortunately most of its copies perished in the fire which destroyed the Fort Printing Press in Bombay. A second edition appeared posthumously in 1964. Bahār (1972) published a useful glossary, and Rašēd Mohassel (1987) published a Persian translation. F. W. Sohn (1980) printed a detailed but debatable book on the medical chapters of the Selections of Zādspram. What is now considered to be the standard edition of this text was published by Ph. Gignoux and Tafazzoli (1993).

Three texts can be assigned to the eschatological and apocalyptical genre. These are the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag, the Zand ī Wahman Yasn, and the Jāmāsp Nāmag. The Ardā Wirāz Nāmag describes a voyage in the afterlife, and Ardā Wirāz’s vision of heaven and hell. In former times some saw in this work a source to Dante’s Divina Commedia, but this seems not to be the case, at least not directly. More profitable is to compare this work with Kerdīr’s vision, analyzed by P. O. Skjærvø (1983). The redaction of this text, and its many repetitions, tell us a story of many revisions and re-telling, as should be expected in the case of such a popular work. This is not the place to dwell on the centrality of individual eschatology in Zoroastrianism, nor should too much be made out of the mention of the name of Wirāz in the Frawardīn Yašt (Yt. 13.101), since the latter is a very repetitive composition. Nonetheless, the theme discussed, its similarity to Kerdīr’s vision, and the parallels with other religious traditions all suggest the original nucleus to be ancient. Mss. K20 and M51, the two more ancient codices of the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag, have already been described above. K26 is an independent manuscript, possibly belonging to the 2nd half of the 17th century and contains both the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag and the Mādayān ī Jōšt ī Friyān. M51a preserves a further fragment, corresponding to the first thirty eight paragraphs of chapter one. M63 contains the Pāzand and Sanskrit version of the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag. Both K26 and M63 belong to the branch of K20. Many later manuscripts were employed by Haug and West in their edition (1872), but they all seem to derive from M51a, or to anyhow be late and secondary. The popularity of the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag trough the ages is shown by its many translations, the first English one being that from Persian by J. A. Pope in 1816. In 1872 Haug and West, with the decisive collaboration of H. JamaspAsa, published the first critical edition. Five years later Barthélemy published a French translation (1877). Leaving aside the many popular translations, one should remember the study by M. Moʾin (1946), G. Gobrecht’s Ph.D. thesis (1965, 1967), the detailed philological and linguistic study by W. Belardi (1979) limited to its first two chapters, and the complete editions by Gignoux (1984) and F. Vahman (1986), who had earlier published a glossary of this work.

More properly apocalyptic are the Zand ī Wahman Yasn and the Jāmāsp Nāmag, the second representing a part of the very widespread tradition of Zoroastrian Jāmāspi texts, gathered by J. J. Modi (1903) and edited by G. Messina (1939). Both contain a prophetic element, represented in the first work by Zoroaster himself and in the second by Jāmāsp. Passages and chapters relative to the end of times, some of which eschatological and other apocalyptic, are contained in many other works, such as the final chapters of Dk. 7, chaps. XXXIV and XXXV of Selections of Zādspram, XLVIII and XLIX of the Pahlavi Rivāyat, and XXXIII and XXXIV of the Bundahišn. This genre seems to have remained alive in the following centuries, and echoes of it can be found in the famous episode of Rustam Farroxzād in Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma (Krasnowolska, 1978; Cereti, 2007). The Zand ī Wahman Yasn is divided in nine chapters, the first two somehow foreign to the text (cf. Cereti, 2001, pp. 127-28). Just as the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag, also the Zand ī Wahman Yasn was to know literary fortune, attested among others by a Pāzand version, a Sanskrit one, and a Persian re-telling composed probably by Rustām Esfandiyār in Yazd in 1496. It is preserved in mss. K20, K20b (a fragment), K43 (only up to the middle of the 7th chapter), and DH (all described above, among the Bundahišn codices). The text of the Zand ī Wahman Yasn was edited at the end of the 19th century by K. A. Nosherwan (1899), who accepted the division into three chapters proposed by West in his 1880 translation. Some years later B. T. Anklesaria prepared a new edition, based on mss. K20 and DH, and divided the work into nine chapters. Unfortunately the printed copies of the book were lost in the 1945 fire which destroyed the Fort Printing Press, but the work was finally made available in 1957. In 1944, S. Hedāyat translated the text into Persian (publ. 1963); more recent is the Persian translation by M. T. Rāšed Mohassel (Tehran, 1991), based on Anklesaria’s edition. In 1961 G. Widengren translated the text into German. In 1995, Cereti published a new edition, based on the four manuscripts. In the same year A. Hultgård published a detailed study on the Zand ī Wahman Yasn.

Noteworthy is the fact that both Ardā Wirāz Nāmag and Zand ī Wahman Yasn are found in manuscripts which also contain the Bundahišn. This is certain for Zand ī Wahman Yasn, contained in codices presenting both the Indian (K20, K20b, and M51) and the Iranian (DH) redaction of Bundahišn, but also for the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag, whose more ancient manuscript are K20 and M51. The Jāmāspi belongs to a totally different tradition. The text, which is now known as Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg, derives from the collation of various manuscripts, accomplished by Messina (1939). Notwithstanding the efforts by the author, the impression is that of a heterogeneous text, incorporating different traditions. The Pārsi text is the most complete, followed by the Pāzand versions. The Pahlavi fragments, conventionally known as Jāmāsp Nāmag, preserve only a smaller fraction of the text (chaps. 10.2-12.2, 13.5-14.5, 16). The narrative structure is that of a series of questions that King Wištāsp asks his bīdaxš, Jāmāsp, and of the answers given by this character, who is known in the Iranian tradition as the seer par excellence. The language is late, as should be expected in such a popular text, which must have undergone many revisions, but the existence of a more ancient nucleus should not be excluded. The manuscripts belonging to the Jāmāspi tradition are late, the most ancient being MU, written by Dastur Dārāb Pāhālān, who lived in Navsari between 1668 and 1735. Codices MU, DE (second half of the 19th century) and the modern copies MU2, M3, and M4 all contain the Pahlavi text and were edited by Modi (1903); West (1904) published Codex DP, an important and old manuscript. The Pāzand text is contained in DE and in a manuscript called RJ by Modi. The more complete Pārsi version is contained in M52, which also offers an interlinear Persian translation. The sixteenth chapter, entirely preserved in Pahlavi, was published by Bailey (1930-32) and was the subject of an important study by E. Benveniste (1932). Messina published his edition of the Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg in 1939. In 2012 D. Agostini produced a recent an up-to-date edition of the Ayādgār ī Jāmāspīg.

Normative and didactic treaties represent a compact group of texts meant to guard the faith of the dwindling Zoroastrian community, and to reaffirm the tenets of this faith in its daily practice. These books thus discuss and present aspects of religious or ritual law internal to the community, which were particularly important in a period when secular power no longer was held by Zoroastrianism. They also contain chapters devoted to theological, eschatological, and cosmological subjects such as those found in the Dēnkard and the Bundahišn, explained at a more elementary level. Nonetheless, at times these texts preserve ancient concepts and traditions which otherwise would have been lost. In many respects, the Persian Rivāyats of the Zoroastrians continue this literary genre. Among the books belonging to this genre one finds two works composed by Manuščihr ī Juwānjam, brother of Zādspram, who was active in the second half of the 9th century. One is the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, which contains Manuščihr’s answers to ninety-two questions on miscellaneous subjects formulated by Mihrxwaršēd son of Ādurmāh. Some of the questions are about the role and function of priests (mard ī ahlaw), others deal with good and bad, others still with the destiny of the soul in the afterlife. Another subject discussed is ritual and religious law. This concern is expressed, on the one hand, by questions dealing with specific ceremonies and customs, and about duties and rights of the priest, including their fees; and on the other, by questions regarding everyday life and commerce, legal aspects such as inheritance and family law, sexual attitudes such as adultery or homosexuality, etc. Finally, a number of questions discuss theological and cosmologic subjects. No doubt, the Dādestān ī Dēnīg is the most important of the works by Manuščihr, and it was most probably written earlier than the Epistles (see below). The volume is extremely interesting on account of the great learning of its author, but it is also extremely difficult because of the convoluted style. It still lacks a complete critical edition. In 1882 West translated the Dādestān ī Dēnīg in the Sacred Books of the East (1882, pp. 1-276), and in 1897 D. P. Sanjana published its first fifteen questions. In 1911 B. T. Anklesaria published the first 40 questions from his father's Nachlass (T. D. Anklesaria, n.d.); and in 1926, together with S. D. Bharucha, he published a Gujarati translation of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg. In 1958 P. K. Anklesaria obtained his Ph.D. with an edition of the second part of Dādestān ī Dēnīg; it was translated by R. P. Peer (1980, unpubl.). M. Jaafari-Dehaghi (1998) published a new edition of the first part of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg.

The second work by Manuščihr is his Epistles, written in all probability in 250 Y./881, though the date only appears at the end of the third letter. The subject matter is a typical example of the ritualistic debate current at the time. Manuščihr reproached his brother Zādspram for his simplification of the Baršnum ritual, which the latter had introduced on the basis of a personal interpretation of the Avesta, Vd. 8.99-103. The Epistles of Manuščihr are addressed, one to the community of Sirjān, one to Zādspram himself, and one to the entire community of the faithful. The Epistles were first translated by West (1882, pp. 277-366) and then edited by B. N. Dhabhar (1912).

Another important work belongs to this same literary genre: the Pahlavi Rivāyat accompanying the Dādestān ī Dēnīg; the name was created by West (1896-1904, pp. II, pp. 104) because its two parts precede and follow the Dādestān ī Dēnīg. The structure of the Pahlavi Rivāyat resembles that of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, since it treats miscellaneous subjects on the ground of a detailed knowledge of other religious texts. Stylistically, however, it presents a more varied picture, since it does not follow the rigid question and answer schema of the Dādestān ī Dēnīg. It consists of sixty-five chapters, the last three of which follow Manuščihr’s book. In contrast to the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, the subject matter of the chapters of the Pahlavi Rivāyat cannot be resumed under a few general headlines, since the author touches on many different matters. However, a general eschatological concern is shown by the many chapters touching on sins, merits, and the afterlife. The text was edited by Dhabhar (1913), followed by H. K. Mirza (1942), in a doctoral thesis limited to the sixty-two chapters that precede the Dādestān ī Dēnīg, and by A. V. Williams (1990), who founded his authoritative translation on Dhabhar’s text.

The Epistles of Manuščihr, Dādestān ī Dēnīg, and Pahlavi Rivāyat share a manuscript tradition, in common with the Selections of Zādspram. This is divided into an Iranian branch, represented by K35, TD, and BK, and an Indian branch represented by manuscripts deriving from a codex lent to T. D. Anklesaria by Dastur Nāmdār Šahryār, who had also brought TD2. Unfortunately, that manuscript went back to Iran, never to surface again (cf. Williams, 1990, pp. 1, 20 ff., and Jaafari-Dehaghi, 1998, pp. 26 ff.).

Codex TD2 containing the Iranian Bundahišn also preserves three rivāyats and an Avesta-Pahlavi work known as the Pursišnīhā. Of these, the Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Asawahištān, which bears the name of a 10th-century head of the believers, was edited by B. T. Anklesaria in 1928 (publ. 1962; re-ed. Safa-Isfahani, 1980). He submitted the work for an award of the University of Bombay. In 1938 he similarly submitted his edition of the other two rivāyats in a two-volume work entitled Pahlavi Rivāyat of Āturfarnbag and Farnbagsrōš (publ. 1969). The work contains: (1) Rivāyat of Ādurfarrbay (re-ed. Rezai Baghbidi, 2005); (2) Rivāyat of Farrbaysrōš; and (3) a text of thirty questions and answers. The text of the Pursišnīhā was first edited by J. Darmesteter (1892-93, III, pp. 53 ff.); B. T. Anklesaria (1925, pp. 331-44) published the Avestan text of the first 44 questions, and K. M. Jamasp-Asa and H. Humbach (1971) edited the complete text. The Rivāyat ī Ēmēd ī Asawahištān, the Rivāyats of Ādurfarrbay and Farrbaysroš, the thirty questions, the Pursišnīhā, and another text called Zand ī fragard ī Wīdēwdād, are all found in TD2, written in Kermān ca. 995-98 Y./1626-29. The three rivāyats are also found in a manuscript called G by B. T. Anklesaria and written by Gōbedšāh Rustam Bundār, author of the ms. TD1 of the Bundahišn and TD of the Dādestān ī dēnīg. The Pursišnīhā are also found in ms. R242 of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute.

The Šāyast nē-šāyast is a text which belongs, according to Boyce (1968a, pp. 39) to the same circle which produced the last commentary to the Wīdēwdād and the Nērangistān. We cannot date it precisely, but the lack of references to Islam, as well as the freedom with which the author discusses subjects which could offend a Muslim ear, may justify a date in the late Sasanian period. The first to translate the Šāyast nē-šāyast, together with the so-called Supplementary texts, was West (1880, pp. 237-406). In his introduction he correctly remarked that these should be considered different texts, since in the most ancient codices they were separated by other works, such as the Frahang ī Ōīm (see below). Moreover, he suggested considering them as treatises dealing with the same subject matter but compiled by different authors. In his opinion, the first ten chapters constitute the Šāyast nē-šāyast, while the Supplementary Texts should be divided into two parts, the first comprising chaps. XI-XIV, the second, XV-XXIII. Its author mentions eleven nasks by name, and in the Šāyast nē-šāyast proper he also cites various commentators. In the Supplementary texts only one commentator, Windohrmazd, is mentioned (cf. West, 1880a, p. lxiii). In about 1912 M. B. Davar (n.d.) published an edition of the Šāyast nē-šāyast. Tavadia (1930) published the ten chapters which constitute the Šāyast nē-šāyast proper; the Supplementary texts were published by M. F. Kotwal (1969). The Šāyast nē-šāyast and the Supplementary texts are transmitted in three independent codices. Two, K20 and M51, were described among the Bundahišn manuscripts, the third, F33, belonging to the Meherji-Rama Library of Naosari, was identified by Kotwal.

The border between the didactic and the andarz genres is not always easy to fix. The andarz genre has been extensively discussed by S. Shaked (s.v. ANDARZ), though here a more restrictive definition of this genre (closer to that used by Boyce, 1968a, pp. 51-55) has been adopted, limiting it to those texts presenting collections of gnomes and to riddle literature such as found in the Mādayān ī Jōšt ī Friyān and in the Draxt ī Asūrīg, or again to those “mirrors of princes” preserved in Arab or Persian texts of Sasanian origins. The Dādestān ī mēnōg ī xrad is a perfectly fit example of this contiguity, so much so that many scholars have classified it under the andarz genre. The interest of this book resides especially in its first two chapters; the first is written in a complex and refined style, the second describes in many details the journey of the soul in the afterlife. The text, with the exception of its first chapter, is characterized by fluent language and direct style meant to reach the heart and mind of the laity. Its language, far from the complex baroque of later Pahlavi texts, may suggest an early composition, perhaps in the late Sasanian period. It is composed of sixty-three chapters that, with the exception of the first two, consist mainly, but not exclusively, of moral advice. Dādestān ī mēnōg ī xrad was first translated by West in his Pahlavi Texts (III, 1885, pp. 1-113), then by T. D. Anklesaria (1913), in an edition of which only few copies circulated. A. Bonšāhi (1938) prepared a Persian translation, A. Bausani (1957) translated it into Italian, and Tafazzoli published both a glossary (1969) and a Persian translation (1975). The Pahlavi version is preserved in codex K43 and in a manuscript belonging to the T. D. Anklesaria collection, both of Iranian origin. Before the 19th century, the Parsis of India only preserved, as far as we know, the Pāzand and Sanskrit versions; the oldest codex including these versions is L19, kept in the India Office Library, London.

The largest collection of wise sayings is found in the 6th book of the Dēnkard, but a wide selection of andarz texts is found also in codex MK, which contains a number of important texts; some of them are to be ranged under the andarz genre, while others are nearer to court literature. Among the main ones are: the Ayādgar ī Zarērān, the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, the Abdīh ud sahīgīh ī Sagestān, the Husraw ī Kawādān ud rēdak-ēw, the Čīdag andarz ī Pōryōtkēšān, the Andarz ī dānāgān ō Mazdēsnān, the Andarz ī Husraw ī Kawādān, the Andarz ī Anōšagruwān Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, the Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr ī Pābagān, the Ayādgar ī Wuzurgmihr, the Draxt ī Asūrīg, the Wizārišn ī Čatrang, and the Abar ēwēnag ī nāmag-nibēsišnīh; for a complete list see B. T. Anklesaria, 1913, pp. 3-4. Only a few known works are found in other codices: (1) Pus ī dānišn-kāmag (M67, TD3, H3, and CI 29); (2) Andarz ī dānāg mard (L7 and L22); (3) Mādayān ī Jōšt ī Friyān, found in the manuscripts containing the Ardā Wirāz Nāmag (esp. K20, M51 and K26); (4) Andarz ī Ōšnar ī dānāg, which follows the Zand ī Wahman Yasn in K20; and (5) Gizistag Abāliš together with another short text, both following Andarz ī Ōšnar ī dānāg in K20. The later Arabic and Persian literature contains some andarz texts which most probably go back to pre-Islamic times, showing that this genre must have been very popular in Sasanian Iran. The manuscript tradition is based essentially on one codex, MK, copied in 691 Y./1322 by the well-known scribe Mihrābān ī Kayhusraw, who also wrote the Pahlavi Yasna codex K5 and the Pahlavi Widēwdād L4, both in 692 Y./1323. Other important codices are JJ (1136 Y./1767), presenting a copy of MK, which is useful to fill some lacunae; Pt, an old codex containing the Jāmāsp-nāmag, the Andarz ī Anōšagruwān Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, the Mādayān ī Sīh Yazadān, consisting of chap. XXIII of the Supplementary Texts to the Šāyast ne-Šāyast, texts 25-28 of MK, a short Āfrīn, the Mādayān ī Sīh Rōzag, and texts 30-37 of MK. The modern codex TD, incomplete at both ends, derives from the same archetype as MK, but seems to be independent.

Among the more important andarz texts is Husraw ī Kawādān ud rēdak-ēw (Unvala, 1917 and 1921), which narrates the history of a young noble at the court of Husraw I who replies to a number of questions about princely education. The text is particularly valuable because it contains a rich and refined lexicon. A narrative similar to its first part is preserved in Ṯaʿālebī’s Ḡorar (Zotenberg, 1900, pp. 705 ff.). The second part, preserved only in the Pahlavi version, narrates the adventure of the youth, who was sent by Husraw I to kill two dangerous lions. Though late, the language of this part is extremely pleasing, providing some of the most readable passages in Pahlavi literature. Other secular andarz texts are: the Andarz ī Kawādān, the Ayādgār ī Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān, of which an Arab version is preserved in the Jāvidān ḵerad of Meskawayh, the Xwēškārīh ī rēdakān, and the Andarz ī kōdagān (two almost identical versions of the same work), the Sūr saxwan and the Abar ēwēnag ī nāmag-nibēsīšnīh. A number of religious andarz are known, many of them attributed to religious authorities, particularly Ādurbād ī Māraspandān, model of the virtues of the Zoroastrian priest. Ten counsels of Ādurbād, opposed to ten sayings of Mani, are preserved in the 3rd book of the Dēnkard (Dk. 3.199-200), and two texts attributed to this author are found in MK: the Andarz ī Anōšagruwān Ādurbād ī Māraspandān and the Wāzag ēw-čand ī Ādurbād ī Māraspandān. A place of its own can be assigned to the Čīdag andarz ī Pōryōtkēšān, also known as Pandnāmag ī Zarduxšt (Kanga, 1960) a post-Sasanian text pseudoepigraphically assigned to Zarduxšt son of Ādurbād ī Mārāspand, which gathers the sayings of the Ancient Teachers. Also interesting is the Andarz ī Ōšnar ī dānāg, pseudoepigraphically assigned to Ōšnar, a sage mentioned in Yt. 13.131. (For further texts of this genre see Cereti, 2001, pp. 181-84.)

A specific style attested in Pahlavi literature is the tenson, witnessed by three texts. The first is the Draxt ī Asūrīg, of probable Parthian origin (cf. Benveniste, 1930; Henning, 1950; Lazard, 1985; Brunner, 1980; Shaked, 1970). It reports a verbal duel between a goat and a date palm, finally won by the goat, representing Iranian Zoroastrian values. A short poem, stylistically similar, called Raz o miš (the grapevine and the ram) survives in Judeo-Persian and in Persian. Another similar work, superficially religious, is the Mādayān ī Jōšt ī Fryān, in which a verbal dispute between Jōšt ī Friyān and the wizard Axt is narrated (Haug and West, 1872, pp. 205-66); the episode is alluded to in the Ābān Yašt (Yt. 5.81-82). The third work of this kind is the Gizistag Abāliš, reporting a dispute between Ādurfarrbay ī Farroxzādān and Abāliš, a Zoroastrian convert to Islam, at the court of Caliph al-Maʾmūn (813-33). Finally, mention should be made of two works, which only survive in later books. One is the Letter of Tansar (Boyce, 1968b), contained in the Tāriḵ-e Tabarestān by Ebn Esfandiār, who translated it from an Arab translation from Middle Persian by Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ. It certainly preserves an original Sasanian nucleus. The other is the Testament of Ardašīr, preserved in its longer form in the Tajārreb al-ummam of Meskawayh, as well as in ms. Köprülü 1608 (Grignaschi, 1966 and 1973). Both works should probably be assigned to the late Sasanian period.

Another important area of Sasanian literature was that of court literature, including epics and poetry, but also works on scientific subjects such as astronomy, astrology, geography, and medicine (cf. Cereti, 2004; Pingree, 1987; Panaino, 1998; Sohn, 1980). Boyce (1955, 1956, and 1957) has traced Iranian epics to Parthian times, and this tradition was continued in the Islamic period in many epic works that magnify the pre-Islamic kingly tradition. Historical traditions known to be derived from a Sasanian book of kings, the Xwadāy nāmag, are reflected also in the works of early Islamic historiographers (cf. Christensen, 1931, 1932, 1944; Yarshater, 1983). The Arab invasion, although traumatic in many respects, did not cause a sudden break in tradition, but rather resulted in two separate channels of transmission: one for the religious texts, the other, mainly for secular and scientific literature. The religious literature continued to be copied within the religious families, but with growing difficulty, which over time led to the loss of many books. In the other case, adaptation to the new social and political realities led to the translation of secular and scientific books into Arabic and then, at times, from Arabic into Persian.

Therefore little is left of secular Sasanian literature in Pahlavi. Codex MK contains two epic treatises. One is the Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr ī Pabāgān, narrating the history of Ardašīr, son of Sāsān later adopted by Pābag, heir to the line of the Achaemenids, who overthrew Ardawān IV and rose to imperial power. This work is characterized by a late language, but goes back to an ancient scheme, which is contained already in the legends about the birth of Cyrus. Pagliaro (1927, pp. 23 ff.) has correctly underlined that, though radically different, the account of the rise of Ardašīr to the throne given by Ṭabarī agrees with the Kārnāmag ī Ardaxšīr ī Pabāgān in a few details, such as the marriage between Ardašīr and Ardawān’s daughter. This work has often been edited and translated, most recently by F. Grenet (2003). The other epic book is the Ayādgār ī Zarērān, of Parthian origin, describing an episode of the battle of the Faith between Wištāsp and Arjāsp. This war is also described in Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma, where it appears profoundly modified. Both the Pahlavi and the Persian translations have been published by D. Monchi-Zadeh (1981).

Two geographical treatises are also contained in codex MK: one, the Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, (Markwart, 1931; Daryaee, 2002) describes the cities of the four quarters of the Empire, though it seems to be based, as R. Gyselen (1988) correctly argues, on literary sources rather than on geographical reality; the other, the Abdīh ud sahīgīh ī Sēstān, (West, 1917) enumerates the reasons for which this region is superior to all others. These include: the presence in the region of several Zoroastrian holy places; the future birth in the region of the saviors Ušēdar, Ušēdarmāh, and Sōšāns (see ESCHATOLOGY i), and especially the fact that religion was first spread in Sīstan and only later in other lands. Another text contained in MK is the Wizārišn ī čatrang ud nihišn ī nēw-ardaxšīr, also known as Mādayān ī čatrang or Čatrang-nāmag. This short text, extremely important for the history of the diffusion of board games, narrates of an envoy of the Indian King Dēwišarm, Tātarītos, who come to the court of Husraw, challenging him to discover the secrets of chess or else to pay tribute. Eventually Wuzurgmihr ī Bōxtagān understood and explained the rules, going on to thrice defeat the Indian envoy. He was then sent to the court of the Indian King with the game of backgammon (taxt-e nard), which none of the Indian sages could explain, and he returned with abundant tribute and gifts. Among many editions of this texts one should mention those by Pagliaro (1951) and Panaino (1999), as well as two articles by F. de Blois (1990 and 1991).

The book known as Mādayān ī Hazār Dādestān, whose title was probably simply Hazār Dādestān, as shown by M. Macuch (1993, p. ii), is the most important source for Sasanian law that has reached us. Though no date is contained in the text, it should most probably be assigned to the late 7th century. The terminus post quem is year 26 of Husraw II (591-628 CE), to which is dated a protocol reproduced in the first part of the Hazār Dādestān. The text collects real-life cases, much as Anglo-Saxon common law does. Most of the cases relate to family law, estates (see INHERITANCE), and legal procedure; thus the text differs from the 9th-century Zoroastrian works—the Dādestān ī Dēnīg and other texts reviewed above—which discuss religious or ritual law and community law side by side. This characteristic reinforces the internal evidence in further suggesting a date for the Hazār Dādestān and the material it contains to a period when the Sasanian king was still in power. The Hazār Dādestān is preserved in one single codex. In 1872 Anklesaria bought in Iran twenty-two folios of this codex, while M. L. Hataria obtained a further fifty-five folios at about the same time. The codex that we possess was probably written in Iran in the 17th century. A marginal annotation found dated 1006 Y./1637 provides the date ante quem. The Hataria folios were published by Modi in 1901, while the Anklesaria ones were published in 1912. S. J. Bulsara published a pioneering translation in 1937. The first critical edition is that by A. G. Perikhanian, who published it with a Russian translation in 1973. In 1998 she published an improved edition and complete English translation. M. Macuch, today’s best specialist of Sasanian law, edited the Anklesaria folios in 1981 and the Hataria folios in 1993, both in German.

Some fragmentary word-lists found in Central Asia reveal the existence of a rich Middle Iranian lexical tradition, particularly important for the Manichean community, which must have assisted the translation of their religious literature into the various languages of the adepts. In the Zoroastrian manuscript tradition a number of glossaries are found, the most important being the Frahang ī Pahlawīg and the Frahang ī Ōīm-ēk. The first is a glossary which contains about four hundred heterograms, together with their respective phonetic spellings. It has come down to us in two different redactions, one ordered orthographically, the other by subject, the latter being most probably the older one. Of the four hundred heterograms, only about two hundred are found in Pahlavi books, the other being suspect: often they are false heterograms derived from Arabic words. The Frahang ī Pahlawīg was first made known in Europe by Anquetil Duperron. Almost a century later, H. J. JāmāspAsānā, together with Haug, published an edition of this text, ordered according to subject (Jamaspji Asa, 1870). In a paper read at the 3rd International Congress of Orientalists, in 1876, C. Salemann (1878) illustrated codex 99 of the Dolgorukiĭ collection of St. Petersburg, containing both versions of the Frahang ī Pahlawīg. In 1912 H. F. J. Junker edited the text, followed in 1941 by E. Ebeling, an assyriologist, who tried, without much success, to show that most heterograms derive from Akkadian or Sumerian. Finally in 1988, B. Utas published the Frahang ī Pahlawīg from the Nachlass of H. S. Nyberg. The manuscript tradition is very rich, ten codices being used by Junker in 1912 and three others added by Nyberg (cf. Junker, 1912, pp. VI and 2 ff., and Utas, 1988, pp. XI-XV). Strangely enough, neither of the two scholars took into account the incomplete text found in TD2, an important codex, already described, dated to 1629 CE. Though no other manuscript is dated, it seems certain that none of them predates the 17th century. A peculiar version of this glossary, written using the Arabo-Persian alphabet, is found in an appendix to the Farhang-e Jehāngir (dated 1608-09, on which see Guizzo, 2005).

The other lexicon, conventionally known as the Frahang ī Ōīm-ēk, from its first entry, is an Avestan and Pahlavi glossary preserved in the two codices of the Indian Bundahišn, K20 and M51. Like the Frahang ī Pahlawīg, it was made known to the Western public by Anquetil Duperron. At the beginning of the 20th century H. Reichelt edited the text in two important articles, which appeared in the Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes in 1900 and 1901. G. Klingenschmitt (1968) made an exhaustive study of this glossary and proposed for the two copies of the text a common ancestor, written ca. 1269 by Rustam Mihrābān.

M. Haug, M. and E. W. West, The Book of Arda Viraf, Pahlavi text prepared by Destur Hoshangji Jamaspji Asa, revised and collated with further manuscripts, with an English translation, Bombay and London, 1872.

A. Hultgård, “The First Chapter of the Bundahišn. Remarks on Text and Composition,” in Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies Part I: Old and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. G. Gnoli and A. Panaino, Rome, 1990, pp. 167-90.

P. B. Sanjana and D. P. Sanjana, Dinkart. The original Péhlwi text; the same transliterated in Zend characters; translations of the text in Gujrati and English languages; a commentary and a glossary of selected terms, 19 vols, Bombay, 1874-1928.